mardigras

Of course you are - you just hide it well by going on about all your meaningless/useless ideas to help punters. You should get some help for your anger issues. Maybe channel some of that angry energy into something more worthwhile for you - like an education.

Only his mental development

I understand they had planned to target Autumn races, but didn't go ahead. Maybe needed a longer break. Not sure.

I repeat. Read it and weep.

They have a bunch of new imports. They also have Latrobe who they haven't completely ruled out, although would have a big question mark. And Nick Williams has basically said Almandin will not be starting a prep for the cup.

I don't think he ever left. And it is Lloyd Williams saying the two of them are unlikely.

Pinot highly unlikely also

You got something right. I rarely bet on NZ racing. And I bet massively (subjectively of course). Yet, even on NZ racing I've managed to put up more NZ runners than you before the events - and at a profit. You should read this again. It sums you up perfectly. Better still, print it out and re-read it every night until you understand it.

I see they are indicating they may not race again before the cup. With a UK rating of 107 after its last start, I'd be thinking there is a decent chance he wouldn't make the field off that. Horses with higher ratings than that have not even managed to get 51kg so Carpenter would have to give the horse favours to get him a start. 3 years ago, horses on 107 got 51 and 50. Two years ago, 2 horses on 109 got 51. Last year a horse on 107 got 51 and a horse on 109 got 50.5. 51 is definitely not guaranteed a start. I wouldn't touch him either way. But certainly not as the clear current favourite.

After the event is a little easier - like today - Lin - I put it up at its last start in the $10+ thread. But today with blinkers off, it was obvious! I'm surprised Thomass has so much difficulty finding these. There's about 300 a week in NZ and Australia just for gallops alone.

The funny part is, it makes no difference what the general impact is - the information is worthless - to be useful, you would need to know what the impact is to the individual horse.

You would need more intelligence than you possess. And I am pleased you think my claim is absolute fairy dusted b/s. I wouldn't want it any other way. But to put it simply, ratings based handicap racing in a jurisdiction over a large sample will follow a consistent pattern of outcomes related to weight (if there is no contrived minimum weight). In a decent jurisdiction, that line will be level as all weights will produce the same relative number of winners across the weight scale. In a not so good jurisdiction, the line will still be linear but not level. Since many jurisdictions run handicap races with minimum weights, that results in horses carrying greater weight than the handicap process would have them carry if there was no minimum. That minimum weight causes the line to be skewed at that point as it drops away relative to the line achieved at all the other higher weights. Those horses weighted to carry above their true relative weight, can then be assessed as to what impact the extra weight had on their performance ('generally' across the sample) until such time as the linear line above the minimum weight remains linear across all the weight groups that should have been allocated. Funnily enough, you can do this for jurisdictions such as all of Australia and NZ and get the same result. What a surprise. Maybe my sample of over 5 million horse starts isn't big enough. Still, I'm pretty sure it is big enough to know that 1kg = 3/4L is garbage 'generally'. That is it, at a basic level of which you still won't understand. The same way you don't understand why all your ideas are flawed. You simply can't comprehend these things. You'll attempt some stupid response because of your ignorance. I'd be surprised if you didn't. Simply, you are not the brightest.

Pantsed? If you say so. But then you don't deal in facts so from you, that is a compliment. Cheers. When you can understand the difference between a generalisation and an individual trait, feel free to re-enter the discussion. Since your last post shows you don't know the difference.

Not only can you not differentiate fact from fiction, but you can't differentiate one topic from another. The topic of whether the horse was affected by the extra weight is a moot one. It may have been, it may not have been. The topic of whether horses are generally affected by weight in the manner you claimed is another topic. Two different topics. Any specific horse could be affected by the extra weight - but who knows to what degree. You'd probably have to look at the horse's performances to see what impact weight has on the horse. You certainly couldn't apply some stat, especially a totally wrong one. But then that is what you continually do. Stupid is as stupid does.

Nothing here Wally. Out and about travelling. If you can find one with blinkers on first time, with a 4kg claimer on a heavy 11 that last raced in black type finishing within 5 lengths of the winner racing in a maiden or R65 - especially if the jockey has walked the track and knows where the fast lane is. Although I doubt you'll get $10 due to all the Thomass' backing it.

You shouldn't be telling others about understanding English. I have not said whether the horse lost because of the extra weight or not. In fact I said it might have. My comments in the main have been referring to your claim of the generally accepted impact of 1kg. Which is a load of garbage. Try and understand the two topics. I couldn't care whether the horse lost because of the additional weight, no one will ever know. But to suggest something like you did shows you can't differenciate between fact and fiction.

You are out of your depth. If you haven't kept up by now, I ignore weight in Australasian handicap races. It's trivial. So my assessment doesn't have to factor anything in about it. So as I said at the beginning, Rosewood may well have lost the race because of excess weight. But a) it isn't because of 1kg =1L, since in general terms such as what you originally said, that is garbage. And b) you don't know whether it lost because of the weight since you can't define the impact the weight had on the horse in that race.

Those values are indications, not useful to me in any way. I use distance. 4kg=1metre 'generally'. 1kg =0.25 metres (or around 0.1L if a standard horse or thereabouts). So 4kg equates to around 0.4L of a standard horse 'generally'. But each horse is different and for some horses 1kg will be many lengths, and for others, nothing worth measuring. If you can't understand that, then I'm not going to be surprised.

No. 0.1L is 0.1L. idiot. Where have I said it is a neck or a nose or a head. It is a distance. Where do you think the confusion is. Hopefully not when I referred to half a length earlier - relating to 4 kg. It was said as an approximate.

Did you read 'small'? Clearly not.

I don't have to convince anyone. It makes no difference who agrees, the difference comes about in my bank account, as it the single biggest point of difference affecting odds that allows me to continually profit. Whereas you go on believing things like that and continually seek more information because what you have isn't working for you. And why wouldn't you put up an apprentice that rides as well as other jockeys. Half a length can be the difference between winning and not. I'd certainly support Waller there as it certainly makes sense.

More like winning gold. And I think that 0.1L per kg 'generally' might be on the generous side. Very easy to model, but impossible for you to understand.

You should consider going on a roadshow giving talks on how punters can improve their punting. It would be a sellout. So long as the promoter advertised it as a stand up comedy.

Yep- *obviously*

Oatham must have heard the same wive's tales as you and struggles to separate fact from fiction.